From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id A73DA3858412; Mon, 14 Feb 2022 07:12:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A73DA3858412
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103008] poor inlined builtin_fmod on x86_64
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 07:12:58 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-103008-4-iASE4FtXUJ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103008-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103008-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 07:12:58 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103008

--- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Fri, 11 Feb 2022, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103008
>=20
> --- Comment #13 from Uro=C5=A1 Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > Just as data-point on znver2 Uros testcase shows
> >=20
> > rguenther@ryzen:/tmp> gcc-11 t.c -Ofast -lm -march=3Dznver2
> > rguenther@ryzen:/tmp> numactl --physcpubind=3D3 /usr/bin/time ./a.out=20
> > 19.18user 0.00system 0:19.18elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> > 1528maxresident)k
> > 0inputs+0outputs (0major+76minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> > rguenther@ryzen:/tmp> gcc-11 t.c -Ofast -lm -march=3Dznver2 -fno-builti=
n-fmod
>=20
> You should use -fno-builtin-fmodf in the above compile flags.

Oops, yes.  Then the glibc version is

22.53user 0.00system 0:22.53elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata=20
1600maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+77minor)pagefaults 0swaps

so indeed for float the x87 inline version is faster when benchmarked
this way.  For double it's

19.31user 0.00system 0:19.31elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata=20
1536maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+76minor)pagefaults 0swaps

vs.

18.47user 0.00system 0:18.47elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata=20
1600maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+77minor)pagefaults 0swaps

so glibc is a bit faster here while the x87 version is of course
similar.  Avoiding the libcall can of course avoid spilling SSE
regs around the call.

So what remains is really the special case in blender doing
fmod (x, 1.) which can eventually be optimized with SSE4.=